FIRM TULSIRAM SADANAND SARDA Vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF LABOUR NAGPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners 2 and 3 are the partners in the Firm Tulsiram Sadanand Sarda and own a shop in which they carry on the trade of purchasing and reselling of cloth and yarn on wholesale basis. Bales of cotton and yarn are purchased from mills and other dealers and the same are resold on wholesale basis in the same form. All the purchases and resales are effected by the petitioners themselves. The petitioner-firm is also registered under the Central Provinces and Berar Shops and Establishments Act, 1947.

(2.) Respondent 5, Pandurang Rajaram Kothale, was an employee of the petitioners. According to the petitioners his duties were domestic in nature. The services of respondent 5 were terminated on 2 June, 1958. Thereafter, he made an application to the Labour Commissioner, Nagpur, under S. 16 of the Central Provinces and Berar Industrial Disputes Settlement Act, 1947 (Act XXIII of 1947). The petitioners objected to the tenability of the application on various grounds. The objections of the petitioners were overruled and by his order, dated 14 April, 1959, the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, who dealt with the case, passed an order awarding him back-wages from the date of termination of service and further a sum of Rs. 300 by way of compensation. The petitioners then filed a revision before the State Industrial Court, Nagpur, against the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Labour. In revision, the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Nagpur, was confirmed. The petitioners have now filed this special civil application for setting aside the orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Labour and the State Industrial Court, Nagpur.

(3.) The contentions raised by the petitioners were (i) that respondent 5 was not an employee working in an industry within the meaning of the provisions of the Central Provinces and Berar. Industrial Disputes settlement Act, 1947. According to the petitioners, their shop was not an industry or an industrial establishment. According to them, their business consisted of making purchases and reselling of cloth and yarn in the form of bales and that this business was carried on by themselves personally. According to them, respondent 5 was only a domestic employee and, therefore, it cannot be considered that he is an employee working in an industry. The second contention raised by the petitioners was that the petitioner-firm was registered as a shop under the Central Provinces and Berar Shops and Establishments Act, 1947, and that it is governed as regards termination of services of an employee by the provisions of the said Act. Therefore, according to the petitioners, if the dismissal of respondent 5 is held to be wrong, the same would be governed by the said special Act and not by the provisions of the Central Provinces and Berar Industrial Disputes Settlement Act. 1947. Thirdly, it was contended that the Assistant Commissioner of Labour was not duly empowered by a notification to try the case of respondent 5 as contemplated by S. 16 of the Central Provinces and Berar Industrial Disputes Settlement Act, and as such the Assistant Commissioner of Labour had no authority under law to take cognizance of the application made by respondent 5 under S. 16 of the Industrial Disputes Settlement Act. It was also urged that in any case the dismissal of respondent 5 was in accordance with law as the petitioner-firm was ready and willing to pay one month's wages to him in lieu of notice as provided in S. 23 of the Central Provinces and Berar Shops and Establishments Act and also under the general law of master and servant. On the above contentions, it has been pressed by the petitioners that the orders passed by respondents 1 and 2 should be quashed.